Former Home Affairs chief Mike Pezzullo tears into Albanese's 'unoriginal' tribute to John Curtin in 'mythical' portrait of legendary PM
He painted Curtin as a canonised Labor hero who locked horns with Churchill over the return of Australian troops from the Middle East, and who maintained a ceaseless vigil as those troops made their way home by sea.
Somehow this was a declaration of independence, when Australia, supposedly for the first time, thought and acted for itself.
Never mind Alfred Deakin building our own navy before World War I, or Billy Hughes pursuing our security interests after that war at the Paris Peace Conference.
The real Curtin was a courageous political leader who, after being appointed Prime Minister in October 1941, did his best to mobilise the Australian people for the coming war in the Pacific.
In December 1941, he famously turned to the US.
He had little choice but to appeal desperately for US military assistance, as Australia could not defend itself, and could not rely upon Britain, which was fighting for its life against Nazi Germany.
Curtin knew that Australia would be a crucial base for future US operations against Imperial Japan.
First, however, Australia would have to be defended.
In early 1942, he and Churchill had a disagreement over the disposition of Australian forces.
Curtin wanted them to return home; Churchill wanted them sent to Burma.
The resultant flurry of cables between the two was a minor dance of allies arguing over war strategy.
Churchill and Roosevelt had far more serious arguments, especially over the invasion of Nazi-occupied Europe.
In 1944, as James Curran showed in Curtin's Empire (2011), after the danger to Australia had passed, Curtin tried to resuscitate the idea of 'imperial defence', whereby Britain and its self-governing British dominions would better coordinate their defence strategies and foreign policies.
Curtin turned back to the British Empire, which is surely an inconvenient blindspot in the mythic origin story of an 'independent' Australian foreign policy.
Forget such myths.
A grittier and unsanctified version of Curtin would serve us better today.
Indeed, that Curtin would be a leader for these dark days.
With a largeness of mind and a strength of character, the Curtin of history grasped the terrible reality that global circumstances did not suit his agenda of socialistic reform.
Instead, he had to focus on questions of war.
After he became Leader of the Opposition in 1935, Curtin recognised that he would have to champion what was, for him and his party, an unnatural cause – namely, how best to independently defend Australia, at a time when the prevailing orthodoxy was to rely on Britain, and its naval base in Singapore.
Had Curtin won the elections of 1937 and 1940, Australia would have been better prepared.
The national panic of 1941-42 might have been avoided.
Australia might have even re-armed in time to be able to deploy a powerful force in its sea-air approaches to confront Imperial Japan's southwards thrust.
Perhaps, Australia might have 'looked to America' sooner - but demanding the final say in its own local defence.
Those who would seek to appropriate Curtin's legacy should not be allowed to admire only what he did as a wartime leader.
To honour him properly, we have to ask what a modern-day Curtin would do in the face of a looming war.
While working tirelessly for peace through diplomacy, Curtin today would be vocal about the threat posed by China.
He would argue for greater defence self-reliance and dramatically increased defence spending.
He would be concerned about the threat of missile and air attack, offensive cyber strikes, raids in remote areas, attacks on shipping, and so on.
He would be deeply engaged with his professional advisers on how best to deal with these military problems.
He would show a deep interest in complex matters of war.
He would recognise that, in a new 'look to America', ANZUS would need to become a warfighting alliance, with a standing headquarters (but this time headed by an Australian).
He would authorise the development of war plans, including jointly with the United States.
He would ask to see those war plans, and to approve them.
He would also give priority to home defence, mobilisation, defence production, and the introduction of national service.
The problem with meeting our heroes is that they always disappoint us.
Meeting the real Curtin – the one who was focused on technical military issues, even if that meant setting aside a socialistic reforming zeal – would disappoint the Prime Minister.
That, however, is the Curtin that we need today.
The Curtin who in the 1930s was concerned that Australia was not doing enough to get ready, and who would today be deeply concerned to see history repeating itself.
Michael Pezzullo was the Home Affairs Secretary from December 2017 until November 2023.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Sydney Morning Herald
15 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Labor vowed to crack down on consultants, but spending is going up
The Albanese government had more than $637 million worth of consulting contracts in the past six months, up more than $100 million on the previous half-year, despite repeated promises to cut back on external advisers. A biannual statement tabled in parliament on Tuesday revealed the government had 131 consultancy contracts valued at $2 million or more active for at least one day between January 1 and June 30, with some individual contracts worth $30 million alone. The high spend shows the challenge for Labor after it vowed to crack down on overreliance on private consultants following concerns about outsourcing and the 2023 PwC tax leaks scandal. Treasurer Jim Chalmers has previously said the Coalition gave core government work to consultants before Labor was elected in 2022, and pledged to restore the public service. 'When we came to office, the public service was hollowed out with too much spending on contractors and consultants,' Chalmers said in April. Loading The publication of the data will also test Labor's pre-election pledge in April to save $6.4 billion in four years by reducing spending on consultants, contractors, labour hire and non-wage expenses like travel, hospitality and property. Multimillion dollar projects with descriptions such as 'industrial uplift strategy' and 'structural review services' from major firms such as McKinsey and BCG are some examples of department spending on consultancy services. Governments commonly give contracts to consulting firms because they claim to offer independent advice, have solved similar problems overseas or at a state level, and can provide access to experts with specialised knowledge.

The Age
15 minutes ago
- The Age
Labor vowed to crack down on consultants, but spending is going up
The Albanese government had more than $637 million worth of consulting contracts in the past six months, up more than $100 million on the previous half-year, despite repeated promises to cut back on external advisers. A biannual statement tabled in parliament on Tuesday revealed the government had 131 consultancy contracts valued at $2 million or more active for at least one day between January 1 and June 30, with some individual contracts worth $30 million alone. The high spend shows the challenge for Labor after it vowed to crack down on overreliance on private consultants following concerns about outsourcing and the 2023 PwC tax leaks scandal. Treasurer Jim Chalmers has previously said the Coalition gave core government work to consultants before Labor was elected in 2022, and pledged to restore the public service. 'When we came to office, the public service was hollowed out with too much spending on contractors and consultants,' Chalmers said in April. Loading The publication of the data will also test Labor's pre-election pledge in April to save $6.4 billion in four years by reducing spending on consultants, contractors, labour hire and non-wage expenses like travel, hospitality and property. Multimillion dollar projects with descriptions such as 'industrial uplift strategy' and 'structural review services' from major firms such as McKinsey and BCG are some examples of department spending on consultancy services. Governments commonly give contracts to consulting firms because they claim to offer independent advice, have solved similar problems overseas or at a state level, and can provide access to experts with specialised knowledge.

Sky News AU
15 minutes ago
- Sky News AU
Drew Hutton ousting: Expulsion of Greens co-founder shows party is unashamedly at odds with men who raise concerns about biological realities and the trans agenda
The expulsion of co-founder Drew Hutton from the Greens is more than a warning shot to anyone in the party who thinks they can question gender ideology without consequence. It is bigger than trashing the legacy of a thoughtful 78-year-old who has dedicated his life to environmental causes. It is, I would argue, about every rational and reasonable man watching this circus and realising he could be next. Young decent Australian men, in particular, have been crucified over the past decade for the crime of being male, forced to routinely defend themselves from the toxic masculinity label. Now the Greens have declared war on men and they are not even hiding it. Men like Mr Hutton who built movements and stood for free speech are now rebranded as bigots and silenced as liabilities. And the male 'crime' is daring to raise concerns about biological reality and more broadly issues like parents' consent for puberty blockers and fairness in women's sport when females are being injured. Mr Hutton lost his life membership of the very party he helped build because he wouldn't toe the line on censoring alleged transphobic remarks made by other people on his Facebook page post from 2022. Exiled not for what he wrote but for 'failing' to censor what others wrote. This is not about discriminating against trans people either. In fact in those posts he said, amongst other things, that he of course supported their full human rights. But now in modern Australia, defending biological sex is seen as an act of hate. The new Greens believe you are what you say you are and if a man, especially an older one, dares to question that, he is dangerous. Yes, the irony here is suffocating. Mr Hutton said the party stymied open discussion about its transgender policy which declares that individuals have 'the right to their self-identified gender'. He called their beliefs 'a closed language, which they understand but nobody else does'. In an interview with ABC's 7.30 after his expulsion, Mr Hutton said: 'The main things they think are important are we get rid of the notion of biological sex and replace it with gender identity… 'What I disagree with vehemently is the way that anybody who actually voices any dissent with that policy and does so from a credible position, that there is such a thing as biological sex and there are two sexes, is forced out of the party.' That is correct. In this ideological revolution, men do not get a say. They effectively get told to shut up and go away. He also told Sky News host Chris Kenny that a 'transgender and queer cult' were at the wheel and driving the Greens off a cliff, effectively taking any environment-focussed party faithful with them. 'Their vision is one where particular identities prevail and the rights of those particular identities are far more important than any other issue that the party addresses,' Mr Hutton said. What was also very telling in this mess was the reluctance of Larissa Waters, the woman who replaced Adam Bandt as leader, to defend Mr Hutton. Ms Waters washed her hands of the whole episode except to say the result showed 'good governance' and claimed she had not read the documents that engineered her former party colleague's exile because she was busy preparing for Parliament with a focus on climate and tax. She added that any future decision about Mr Hutton's potential return to the party was 'not up to me'. In other words, defending him would mean challenging the mob. The Greens' purge of Mr Hutton sets a dangerously low bar of how Australian men are treated and ultimately silenced. The message to men is that your history, contributions and your view are null and void if you dare to question, even factually and politely, the new order. And that is not progress. Louise Roberts is a journalist and editor who has worked as a TV and radio commentator in Australia, the UK and the US. Louise is a winner of the Peter Ruehl Award for Outstanding Columnist in the NRMA Kennedy Awards for Excellence in Journalism and has been shortlisted in other awards for her opinion work.